Page 2 of 2
RE: Shore Battery effectiveness
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:16 am
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Miller
Come on, an average of 30 ships sunk a day[:-] The best gunners in the world would struggle to get that sort of score.......totally overated regardless of task force composition in my opinion[:@]
Unfortunately for your arguement, "your opinion" doesn't really qualify as "source material". What you need to remember is that in an age before "Fire Control Radar", Coast Defense Installations such as Oahu had a tremendous ACCURACY advantage over any seaborne artillery. The guns are solidly "fixed" and surveyed, and they are wired into a sophisticated Fire Control System with spotting and plotting stations all around the island. They are pre-registered, and have tables available to make allowance for everything from humidity to tide levels.
To fire accurately, naval guns fire control need to plot the range and bearing of the target continuously. From a moving vessel, this is difficult. You have a limited space to mount your range-finder, and you have to plot the bearings from moving and rocking and vibrating base (even a bit of vibration becomes a factor when the range is MILES). Your "base-ends" for range finding are 8-20 meters apart, making 1000ths of a degree vital. Ashore, only the target is moving, and the base-ends for your plotting stations are miles apart, and multiple, and tied in directly.
A ship is also a much bigger "target" than a CD gun. A hit anywhere causes damage to a ship (even a near miss can cause damage. Billy Mitchell specifically ordered his bombers to try for "near misses" when making the final attack on the Ostfriesland.) To "knock out" a CD gun, you have to literally hit the gun. Otherwise, at very best, you "supress it" for a short while, or much more likely just chew up some rock and dirt. But if you miss a ship's guns, you can still hit other vital areas. The ship's guns won't help if the ship is sinking..., Oahu can't sink.
The actual result of the above is that CD artillery is 10 to 20 times more accurate than seaborne artillery.
That's why the batteries only have 2-4 guns/mortars, while ships mount the largest number possible. If you can expect a hit with every 3rd shell instead of every 30th against a ship (or every 300th shooting at a CD gun), you don't need as many guns. In your example, your attacking TF didn't even have anything with the fire-power to "supress" the defense---so it was "target practice" with a vengence. If you only lost 30 ships a day, it's because the system UNDER-estimates the accuracy of CD Installations.
RE: Shore Battery effectiveness
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:30 am
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Helpless
Was the Oahu's harbor the only place to have an invasion? Might be the reason all the forts are located in the southern part of PH. Or could they bring an equall suppression in case of TF approaching from north? [&:]
http://www.cdsg.org/mapspdf/HDHI1921.pdf
http://www.cdsg.org/hawaii.htm
In game there is no distinction between landing direction and all of these Forts will eventually fire, because PH is a single hex location.
RIGHT. Let's try to land on the North Shore. It'll be a real scream trying to watch infantry row ashore down the "Banzaii Pipeline". Even more fun trying to raft in your support weapons and supplies. And your transports will still be under 16" fire (a range of over 28 miles from the center of a 60 mile hex doesn't leave much hiding room) even on the North shore. That's also an area covered by positions for the "mobile guns". A 6" shell is more than adequate to deal with a merchant ship (Graf Spee used her 5.9's for this purpose, reserving her 11" for potential Naval targets), One 16" round CAN sink a transport. They aren't armored, and the subdivision of the hull is for cargo handling, not flotation.
RE: Shore Battery effectiveness
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:55 am
by jwilkerson
It'll be a real scream trying to watch infantry row ashore down the "Banzaii Pipeline".
Hey can't we assume the IJN has recently trained up a "Special Surfing Marine Landing Battalion" [:D][:D][:D]
So they aren't rowing ashore, they're riding their boards ashore !
RE: Shore Battery effectiveness
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 4:10 am
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
It'll be a real scream trying to watch infantry row ashore down the "Banzaii Pipeline".
Hey can't we assume the IJN has recently trained up a "Special Surfing Marine Landing Battalion" [:D][:D][:D]
So they aren't rowing ashore, they're riding their boards ashore !
Thousands of Japanese "surf bums"? With 60 lbs of equipment strapped on them trying to ride the "Pipeline" all the way to the beach? I'd pay money to see that tried...... Wouldn't be "tongue
in cheek" as much as "a--holes and elbows". Funny idea....., and it shows just how far into the
realms of the rediculous you have to go to make the idea of invading Oahu work.
RE: Shore Battery effectiveness
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:02 am
by Helpless
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Helpless
Was the Oahu's harbor the only place to have an invasion? Might be the reason all the forts are located in the southern part of PH. Or could they bring an equall suppression in case of TF approaching from north? [&:]
http://www.cdsg.org/mapspdf/HDHI1921.pdf
http://www.cdsg.org/hawaii.htm
In game there is no distinction between landing direction and all of these Forts will eventually fire, because PH is a single hex location.
RIGHT. Let's try to land on the North Shore. It'll be a real scream trying to watch infantry row ashore down the "Banzaii Pipeline". Even more fun trying to raft in your support weapons and supplies. And your transports will still be under 16" fire (a range of over 28 miles from the center of a 60 mile hex doesn't leave much hiding room) even on the North shore. That's also an area covered by positions for the "mobile guns". A 6" shell is more than adequate to deal with a merchant ship (Graf Spee used her 5.9's for this purpose, reserving her 11" for potential Naval targets), One 16" round CAN sink a transport. They aren't armored, and the subdivision of the hull is for cargo handling, not flotation.
I didn't quite understand the meaning of the "pipline", but level of your sarcasm shows that it would be very stupid idea

...
thanks for the answer
[:)]
RE: Shore Battery effectiveness
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:13 am
by michaelm75au
"Pipeline" is in reference to surfing and big waves off beach.
Michael
RE: Shore Battery effectiveness
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 11:00 am
by Helpless
Thanks Michael!
Never thought that surfing and wargaming might be related [:D]
RE: Shore Battery effectiveness
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:11 pm
by jwilkerson
ORIGINAL: michaelm
"Pipeline" is in reference to surfing and big waves off beach.
Michael
And BTW these waves ( on the Oahu North Shore ) are breaking over the coral reefs underneath, so if you fall off your board, you land on the reef !!! Not a spot for beginners !!
RE: Shore Battery effectiveness
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 3:40 pm
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Helpless
I didn't quite understand the meaning of the "pipline", but level of your sarcasm shows that it would be very stupid idea

...
thanks for the answer
[:)]
I'm not going to call it stupid. It would be a wonderful idea...,
if it would work. Winning the Lottery is a wonderful thing too..., but it's not something you want to bet your retirement on. In WITP it
might be possible with the establishment of a lot of forward air bases and a massive effort, but it the 20's it would be almost impossible. And the "Banzaii Pipeline" is a particular stretch of beach on the North Shore of Oahu where the waves get truely enormous and viscious. Only a few real "kamikaze's" even attempt to surf it---hence the name.
RE: Shore Battery effectiveness
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:27 am
by bradfordkay
Winning the Lottery is a wonderful thing too..., but it's not something you want to bet your retirement on.
Dang, I guess that I need to rethink my retirement strategy. So far it looks like dying before retirement is the most likely option...
RE: Shore Battery effectiveness
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 2:58 pm
by pvicente
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Helpless
Was the Oahu's harbor the only place to have an invasion? Might be the reason all the forts are located in the southern part of PH. Or could they bring an equall suppression in case of TF approaching from north? [&:]
http://www.cdsg.org/mapspdf/HDHI1921.pdf
http://www.cdsg.org/hawaii.htm
In game there is no distinction between landing direction and all of these Forts will eventually fire, because PH is a single hex location.
RIGHT. Let's try to land on the North Shore. It'll be a real scream trying to watch infantry row ashore down the "Banzaii Pipeline". Even more fun trying to raft in your support weapons and supplies. And your transports will still be under 16" fire (a range of over 28 miles from the center of a 60 mile hex doesn't leave much hiding room) even on the North shore. That's also an area covered by positions for the "mobile guns". A 6" shell is more than adequate to deal with a merchant ship (Graf Spee used her 5.9's for this purpose, reserving her 11" for potential Naval targets), One 16" round CAN sink a transport. They aren't armored, and the subdivision of the hull is for cargo handling, not flotation.
I was reading a book yesterday about a hypothetical invasion of Hawaii (the name is "Days of Infamy" by Harry Turtledove) the day after the attack on Pearl Harbour, and the author makes the Japanese invasion force land on that shore. With some ligth tanks and cannon! [:D]
The surf is pretty weak on the day of the landing, but that still doesn't sound very realistic, and the battle for the island goes on for weeks after that, so supplies would have to ride that "Banzaii Pipeline" for a long time...
That's not the only weird thing in the book, the carrier force that attacks Pearl Harbour manages to bring along a whole fleet of freigthers with the invasion force (a couple of divisions I think) without being detected, and then hangs around the area for at least a couple of weeks after the raid, supporting the invasion with ground attacks and sinking U.S. carriers.
RE: Shore Battery effectiveness
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:57 pm
by Rob322
ORIGINAL: pvicente
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Helpless
Was the Oahu's harbor the only place to have an invasion? Might be the reason all the forts are located in the southern part of PH. Or could they bring an equall suppression in case of TF approaching from north? [&:]
http://www.cdsg.org/mapspdf/HDHI1921.pdf
http://www.cdsg.org/hawaii.htm
In game there is no distinction between landing direction and all of these Forts will eventually fire, because PH is a single hex location.
RIGHT. Let's try to land on the North Shore. It'll be a real scream trying to watch infantry row ashore down the "Banzaii Pipeline". Even more fun trying to raft in your support weapons and supplies. And your transports will still be under 16" fire (a range of over 28 miles from the center of a 60 mile hex doesn't leave much hiding room) even on the North shore. That's also an area covered by positions for the "mobile guns". A 6" shell is more than adequate to deal with a merchant ship (Graf Spee used her 5.9's for this purpose, reserving her 11" for potential Naval targets), One 16" round CAN sink a transport. They aren't armored, and the subdivision of the hull is for cargo handling, not flotation.
I was reading a book yesterday about a hypothetical invasion of Hawaii (the name is "Days of Infamy" by Harry Turtledove) the day after the attack on Pearl Harbour, and the author makes the Japanese invasion force land on that shore. With some ligth tanks and cannon! [:D]
The surf is pretty weak on the day of the landing, but that still doesn't sound very realistic, and the battle for the island goes on for weeks after that, so supplies would have to ride that "Banzaii Pipeline" for a long time...
That's not the only weird thing in the book, the carrier force that attacks Pearl Harbour manages to bring along a whole fleet of freigthers with the invasion force (a couple of divisions I think) without being detected, and then hangs around the area for at least a couple of weeks after the raid, supporting the invasion with ground attacks and sinking U.S. carriers.
That's one reason why Mr. Turtledove's books are found in the Sci-Fi/FANTASY section [:D]
RE: Shore Battery effectiveness
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:34 pm
by Arkady
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
It'll be a real scream trying to watch infantry row ashore down the "Banzaii Pipeline".
Hey can't we assume the IJN has recently trained up a "
Special
Surfing
Marine
Landing
Battalion" [:D][:D][:D]
So they aren't rowing ashore, they're riding their boards ashore !
Something like this ??
Yokosuka SSMLB in Banzai Pipeline [8D]

[:D]
RE: Shore Battery effectiveness
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:45 pm
by String
ORIGINAL: Arkady
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
It'll be a real scream trying to watch infantry row ashore down the "Banzaii Pipeline".
Hey can't we assume the IJN has recently trained up a "
Special
Surfing
Marine
Landing
Battalion" [:D][:D][:D]
So they aren't rowing ashore, they're riding their boards ashore !
Something like this ??
Yokosuka SSMLB in Banzai Pipeline [8D]

[:D]
LOL!!!!
this is super!!!!
RE: Shore Battery effectiveness
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:03 am
by jwilkerson
ORIGINAL: Arkady
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
It'll be a real scream trying to watch infantry row ashore down the "Banzaii Pipeline".
Hey can't we assume the IJN has recently trained up a "
Special
Surfing
Marine
Landing
Battalion" [:D][:D][:D]
So they aren't rowing ashore, they're riding their boards ashore !
Something like this ??
Yokosuka SSMLB in Banzai Pipeline [8D]

[:D]
I think IRL the boards would have to be
just a bit longer to be able to handle the weight of a fully equiped
Special Surfing Marine ... but you've definitely got the right idea here !!!
[:D][:D][;)]
RE: Shore Battery effectiveness
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:13 am
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
ORIGINAL: Arkady
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Hey can't we assume the IJN has recently trained up a "Special Surfing Marine Landing Battalion" [:D][:D][:D]
So they aren't rowing ashore, they're riding their boards ashore !
Something like this ??
Yokosuka SSMLB in Banzai Pipeline [8D]

[:D]
I think IRL the boards would have to be
just a bit longer to be able to handle the weight of a fully equiped
Special Surfing Marine ... but you've definitely got the right idea here !!!
[:D][:D][;)]
The boards are reasonably to scale for the "Pipeline"...but the soldiers are about 4 times too large. Those are some massive waves and breakers
RE: Shore Battery effectiveness
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:17 am
by Ron Saueracker
I can see that this silliness is in WPO too. Maybe it will get toned down somewhere near believable.
RE: Shore Battery effectiveness
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:49 pm
by Helpless
banzai attacks on PH been toned down recently by intoroducing more forts.. [:D]